Both options do not support established and documented tagging. The way to
manage this kind of change is to discuss a road to better tagging
while keeping rendering of the established tagging until this has been
accomplished. If retagging is a part of improvement, time should be allowed
to get this
See a suggestion by Christoph at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3844#issuecomment-583848782:
"If anyone wants to develop a followup to this change - i prepared two
branches that could be helpful:
1)
https://github.com/imagico/osm-carto-alternative-colors/tree/no-barrier
Le 07.02.20 à 13:59, Peter Elderson a écrit :
> intentionally mapped hedge areas. Not leisure/natural/landuse etc.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qwl exclude it
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagg
Well, I'm not so good with overpass turbo, but this query gives an
impression:
[out:json][timeout:25];
(
way["barrier"="hedge"]["area"="yes"]({{bbox}});
);
// print results
out body;
>;
out skel qt;
When I run it on different parts of Nederland and Belgium, it finds many
hedge areas in most
> Zeeland is a bad example, and absolute numbers are low. ...
> Please check Noord-Brabant, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht.
You can do these searches yourself at overpass, eg Utrecht:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qv7
There are 107 linear hedges in Utrecht, and only 1 mapped as a polygon
(http://www.openstre
